The resurrection of the dead...

Front matter

LIBR/ (Y OF CO 'i&l

UNITE© STATES _ IIBICA*

.

Part I

WHY SHOULD IT BE THOUGHT A THING INCREDIBLE WITH YOU, THAT GOD SHOULD RAISE THE DEADl ACTS XXVI, 8.

Whatever throws light upon the ultimate destination of man must be matter of intense interest to every considerate mind. That man is mortal ; that his stay upon earth is brief and uncertain ; that age, like the chilling winter, palsies and benumbs his limbs ; that the dark and dismal night of death closes around him in the midst of his pursuits, are truths within the observation of all. But " if a man die, shall he live again ?" Is there a trans-sepulchral world ? Is the lamp of reason and intelligence, which has been lighted up by the eternal Fountain, to go out in everlasting darkness; or, does the curtain of death but conceal from mortal view its lustre, while it passes over the "gloomy vale" into a "spirit land?" Is the "dark valley and shadow of death" the ultimate boundary of human prospects, or is there beyond it " a land inhabited ?" And, if so, what are the relations and dependencies between that world and this? These are questions which press upon the mind whose only illumination is the light of reason, with painful interest. These are problems belonging to a higher science than is taught in nature's book. A revelation from God alone can solve them. This has been made. The great Master and Teacher, "the Father of lights," has explained these otherwise inextricable mysteries, for our learning and salvation.

This revelation teaches most clearly,

I. That man's soul is immortal ; that it does not die with the body, but has a conscious existence when the body is dead.

II. That although the body is now mortal, it was not originally so; but has become so by transgression.

III. That the body, which has become mortal in consequence of sin, shall be raised again to life, and be made immortal, through the atonement of Jesus Christ ; and,

IV. That soul and body united shall be happy or miserable for ever, in the world to come, according to the character sustained in this.

Every one of these propositions has been denied by those who, nevertheless, profess to believe the Scriptures. Yet not one of them can be disproved without doing violence to every known principle of interpretation.

But the third proposition, namely, that there will be a resurrection of the human body, will more particularly claim our attention at this time. Every fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures has, by turns, been assailed by the enemies or the misguided friends of the gospel of Christ ; and the errors of these enemies or misguided friends have only been exposed by bringing the steady light of revelation to bear upon them, until their uncouth features and frightful deformities might be made apparent, and their evil and pernicious influence effectually shunned.

The time has come when in regard to the doctrine of the resurrection it is necessary to " contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." Professor Bush, a man of talent, of learning, and a minister of the gospel, has, in a very labored treatise, used all his strength and ingenuity to prove that there can be no resurrection of the human body, in any sense whatever. From the position Professor B. occupies, as well as from the relation ins views have to certain other doctrines of Scripture, it is not difficult to foresee that his opinions will draw after him numerous followers.

A few quotations, from the work of Professor B., will show that I have not misunderstood him. On the first page of the preface he says : " The resurrection of the body, if my reasoning and expositions are well founded, is not a doctrine of revelation" Again : " The resurrection of the same body, in any sense whatever, encounters difficulties in our view absolutely insurmountable" P. 40. Again: "How the evidence adduced may strike the reader we know not ; to our minds it is amply sufficient to establish the conclusion, that the resurrection of the body is not a doctrine sanctioned by reason or revelation, so far as we have hitherto interrogated the testimony of each." P. 274. Multitudes of such passages, from all parts of the book, might be collected.

Having seen what our author positively denies, let us next see what he positively affirms ; that both denial and affirmation may be submitted to the test of the Scriptures. On page 70 he says, " The resurrection body is that part of our present being to which the essential life of the man pertains. We may not be able to see it, to handle it, to analyze, or describe it. But we know that it exists, because we know that we ourselves exist. It constitutes the inner, essential vitalities of our present bodies ; and it lives again in another state, because it never dies. It is immortal in its own nature, and is called a body — a spiritual body — because the poverty of human language, or perhaps the weakness of the human mind, forbids the adoption of any more befitting term by which to express it." Again : " It would seem, then, on the whole, from a collation of all the grounds on which an opinion is founded, that the judgment of reason would be, that a spiritual body is developed at death — by the development we mean disengagement." P. 78. Again : " It is something essentially connected with vital operations ; something that is exhaled with the dying breath, or, in other words, that goes from the body before it is consigned to the dust." Again : " Let it (the resurrection) be understood as an event which transpires with every individual believer, as soon as he leaves the body." P. 170. " The true anastasis (or resurrection) is the development of a spiritual body at death" P. 78. From these passages, which might be greatly extended, this theory maintains that all the resurrection there is for human beings, is the separation of the soul and body, at death ; and the conscious existence of the soul, after death : the participation of the body in this resurrection being distinctly denied. That Professor B. means the same thing by his spiritual body which others mean by the soul is further evident from the following quotation, p. 145: "The prevailing sense of resurrection, in the New Testament, is simply that of a future existence, the future state, or immortality." Consequently by this theory there will be no general resurrection, nor general judgment : and this he argues at length in his book. " The grand point," says Professor B., " which we combat throughout, is that which affirms that no resurrection can take place but by means of the reunion of those principles, soul and body, which constitute our being in the present life. We maintain, on the other hand, that neither reason nor revelation countenance the idea of any such reunion. All the purposes of a future state of existence and retribution we contend may be answered without it." P. 78.

Having stated, somewhat at length, the theory which contradicts a great, and, as we believe, a fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures, let us next look at the arguments by which the new theory is substantiated. These are drawn, first, from reason; and, secondly, from revelation.

But the argument from reason is made the criterion by which the declarations of Scripture are interpreted. This will be made plain by another quotation, p. 385 : " The point that will probably be regarded as most exceptionable, is the making our rational deductions the criterion in regard to the meaning of the inspired word, on a theme of so much importance as the mode of our future existence." Such a declaration, from such a quarter, cannot fail to startle the pious believer, who has been accustomed to place implicit reliance in the lively oracles of eternal truth. It is easy to perceive in this, though perhaps not so intended by the author, the latent germ of infidelity. And although it is but a smooth, round egg, a serpent is forming within it, whose poisonous venom will be the destruction of those who embrace him. The following quotation will show him more distinctly : " If the letter of revelation holds forth a view of the doctrine which arrays itself against the clearest evidence of facts, and the soundest process of reasoning, is there no demand, on the other side, for the reconciliation of Scripture with reason and science ? Are ive to hoodwink our faculties to do homage to revelation ?" Here the more than semi-transparent covering shows u§ the snaky folds of the serpent. He is fullblooded, if not full-grown ; and ere long he will burst the shell, and become a hideous monster, rolling his fiery eyes, and darting his forked tongue. I would not charge the author of the new theory with intentionally advocating infidel principles, for he avows his firm belief in the Scriptures; but I do say that the legitimate tendency of such dealing with the Scriptures is to infidelity.

What infidel would refuse to subscribe to the Scriptures, if permitted to reject, or explain away, whatever does not suit his " rational deductions ?" and especially if he be allowed to do what Professor B. has done, positively contradict the inspired apostles, and accuse them of being mistaken, when they cross his path. It has been in precisely this way that many of the most ruinous and soul-destroying heresies have crept into the Christian church. Universalism and Unitarianism owe their very existence to this method of tampering with the Scriptures. Professor B. rejects the doctrine of the resurrection, because he cannot see any use for such a doctrine ; affirming that all the purposes of a future state and of retribution may be answered without it. P. 78. For the same reason do Universalists deny the doctrine of future retribution. They suppose all the purposes of the divine government can be answered without it. For the same reasons do both Unitarians and Universalists deny the doctrine of a vicarious atonement, the divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity. In all this there is such a show of philosophy, falsely so called, such a pampering of human pride, such erroneous notions of the true province of human reason, as are well calculated to induce those under the influence of such views to sit unblushingly in judgment on the ways of God. How has Professor B. ascertained that all the purposes of a future state can be answered without the resurrection of the human body ? How likely are we to be mistaken, and to form erroneous opinions, in regard to things immediately surrounding us ; and who, unless it be the crazy Swedenborg, with whose writings I suspect our author has kept company too long, shall stand up and declare that from his knowledge of all the relations and dependencies of a future state, as well as from his knowledge of all the purposes of the divine mind, there is no use for the human body in a future state ?

I would not say that human reason has nothing to do in matters of religion ; very far from it. Its sphere is, first, to examine the proofs which establish the authenticity of the Scriptures ; and, secondly, to ascertain, by the established principles of interpretation, what the Bible does teach — not what it must teach, in order to accord with our previous notions or " rational deductions."

The very fact that a revelation has been made supposes human reason ignorant of the things revealed; otherwise there would have been no need of the revelation. That any particular doctrine of revelation cannot be discovered by the light of reason, therefore, is no objection against such doctrine, but rather an argument in its favor, inasmuch as if all the doctrines of the Bible might have been known without a revelation, there would have been more grounds for believing the Bible to be a mere human production, the result of man's " rational deductions."

The grand error in the theory we are opposing is, that it attempts to discover the doctrines of religion independently of the only light that has revealed them, and then requires the Bible to sanction its conclusions. The best eye cannot see without light. No more can the best reasoning powers draw correct conclusions without sufficient data. And in matters of religion it is the peculiar province of revelation to furnish this data. The optician who should shut himself up in a dark room, in order to investigate the properties of light, and then require the laws of optics to conform to his preconceived theory, his "rational" or irrational "deductions," would not be more inconsistent than the theologian who professes to investigate the deep things of God, independently of the only means that has revealed them, and then requires the Bible, whether it will or not, to sanction his favorite theology.

From all this it is a most "rational deduction," that human reason should investigate any subject in the light of that science which properly embraces that subject. What would be thought of the mathematician who should set himself to work to discover, by arithmetical formula, the laws of chemical affinity? or of the musician who should undertake to investigate the principles of geometry by tones and semi-tones ? Can the laws of gravitation develop the principles of moral obligation? or the rules of rhetoric explain the properties of the rainbow ? The reason is plain ; these sciences are not homogeneous. They differ essentially in their nature, and the principles of the one do not apply to the other. Chemistry must be studied in the light of chemistry ; geometry in the light of geometry, and so of all others.

Many truths can be demonstrated only by 2 the evidence of experience, and no previous train of reasoning a 'priori could develop them. A person takes into his mouth a little starch, a perfectly tasteless substance: he then tastes sulphuric acid, one of the most intensely sour and acrid of all substances. What does he expect will be the taste of the compound of the two ? Why, inasmuch as the one was intensely sour, and the other had no taste at all, he would most likely conclude that the compound would be sour still. What then becomes of his " rational deductions " when, upon tasting the compound, he finds it sugar.

Take another example. A philosopher who has never seen a bird upon the wing, finds the nest of an eagle. He is told that from these eggs there will emerge animals which will move off with great rapidity through the air. The thing appears to him at once "incredible." He breaks one of the eggs, examines it minutely, ascertains its specific gravity to be even greater than water. Even if it should ever have life, of which he sees no signs, how is it going to move off in the air when it sinks in water ? At length an animal, different from anything he has seen, emerges from the shell. He watches its growth and development until it is full grown. But yet its specific gravity is much greater than air.

How then is it going to rise and float off above the earth ? While he thus reasons and speculates, the bird spreads his wings, and mounting above the clouds, mocks all his short-sighted speculations.

What a pity that men will not learn modesty from their own liability to be mistaken in matters much less mysterious than the resurrection of the dead I And if one human science cannot develop the principles of another human science, how much less shall any human science develop the great truths of revealed religion ! It is true that the sciences reciprocally reflect light upon each other; and revelation sheds its effulgent light upon all true science ; and all science, truly so called, reflects back the golden rays of revelation. But all tins is incidental, and I may add, too, providential ; but it is not the province of one science to develop another, much less is it the province of any or all human science to discover the great principles of divinely inspired truth.

As our author has drawn largely from the analogies of science in order to prepare the minds of his readers for his new theory, I now proceed to examine a sophism, which is at the very foundation of this new theory of the resurrection. It is argued that all knowledge is progressive, as well the knowledge of revelation ; as the knowledge of the sciences and that, consequently, we may expect that different views will be entertained on the subject of revealed truth, in different ages, in accordance with this view of progressive knowledge. The various changes rung upon this idea occupy a large space in this modern theory. Now the sophistry does not consist in the mere assertion that " knowledge is progressive," but in the application of it. It is true that knowledge is progressive. But how does knowledge progress ? By exploding at each successive step all previous knowledge ? Most certainly not. It only progresses by ascertaining some fixed principles, and then proceeding upon these principles, and not by constantly unsettling these principles themselves. Truths must exist as unchangeable realities, before there can be any progressive knowledge of them. The knowledge of the sciences is progressive; but no progressive knowledge unsettles the great fundamental principles which are at the very foundation of the sciences themselves. For example, we may say the knowledge of geometry is progressive. But will any progressive knowlege of this science unsettle its elementary principles? Will any progressive knowledge prove that a square has not all its sides equal, and all its angles rightangles? or that a circle is not bounded by a curved line, every part of which is equally distant from a common point? And when it is fairly demonstrated that the square upon the hypothenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, can any subsequent progressive knowledge prove this theorem false ? Subsequent investigations thenceforth receive this theorem as an established truth. Similar reasoning applies to other sciences.

The case is similar with regard to revealed religion. God has established a system of truth, a religious science, for the salvation of mankind.

This science, like all others, contains certain elementary and fundamental truths, which truths remain unaltered by any progression in human knowledge. The resurrection of the dead is one of these truths, and one of so much importance, that our Saviour rests upon it his entire claim as Redeemer of the world. This doctrine comes to us as a revealed truth, and is, perhaps, more purely within the province of revelation alone, than almost any other doctrine of the Scriptures ; a doctrine so entirely above and beyond the reach of unaided human reason, that she is unable in her own name to say one word either for or against it; but yet a doctrine as unequivocally taught in the Bible, the only book that could reveal it, as any proposition can be taught in language ; and a doctrine of so much importance in the estimation of the inspired apostles, who understood by it, according to the admission of Professor B., the resurrection of the body, that they rested all their pretensions upon it, and even the salvation of their souls from eternal perdition; and suffered death in the most frightful forms, because they could not be made to renounce it. Nay more, Professor B., p. 167, admits that our Saviour intended that the apostles should believe this doctrine. If the God of truth intended that the apostles should believe this doctrine, how does Professor B. know but that he intends that all the rest of mankind should also believe it? If the unchangeable God intended that this doctrine should be believed eighteen centuries ago, how has Professor B. ascertained that he does not intend it still ? Has there been any new revelation since? But Professor B. intends that mankind shall disbelieve this doctrine. May not his task, in this respect, be rather a thankless one ? And is there not a little danger that he be found contending against God ? If the doctrine was true when God intended it to be believed, it is true still. If it was false, then God intended that the apostles, who were made the dispensatories of his will to mankind, should believe a falsehood!! A conclusion at once both shocking and basphemous. How then is the law of progressive knowledge to strike from the bright constellation of religious truths* this central star?

The truths of revelation are not like some Machines, which require to be remodeled and improved from time to time in order to suit the improvements of the age ; nor like some garments, that must be cut and made over every six months to be in fashion. If they were, there might be some propriety in talking about the law of progressive knowledge, as applied to the doctrine of the resurrection. Then, indeed, we might send to the east every spring and fall for our theology, as we now do for our fashions. But the doctrines of the gospel are pure, unchanging, and eternal truths.

There is no doubt that the knowledge of the Scriptures, like other knowledge, is progressive ; and that age after age may unfold new excellences in the word of God, as its precepts come to be better obeyed, and its prophecies, yet future, come to be fulfilled and better understood ; but so far from unsettling the confidence of mankind in its great fundamental truths, this very circumstance will but strengthen it.

We are now prepared to explode another sophism similar in its character to the one just examined. The principle laid down, out of which a great deal of capital is attempted to be made in all parts of the book, against the resurrection of the body, is, in substance, this: The God of revelation is also the God of nature, and the revelation in his word cannot contradict the revelation in his works. And our author cannot "hoodwink his faculties to do homage to revelation."

This popular declaration is in the mouth of every one who wishes to array his favorite dogma against the teachings of God's word, and is very well calculated to lead astray the minds of the unwary. In this case, as in the other, the sophistry does not consist so much in the declaration itself, as in the application of it. The declaration has two sides to it. And conclusions directly the reverse from those usually drawn from it are the correct conclusions. Suppose a particular dogma, the result of philosophical investigation, or " rational deduction," arrays itself against the plain teachings of God's word. Before any conclusion unfavorable to the doctrine of the Scriptures can be drawn from such a dogma, it must be supported by an amount of evidence superior to that which substantiates the divine authenticity of the Scriptures. And this we venture to affirm is a case that never occurred. Therefore, the conclusion, in all such cases, is against the dogma itself, and not against the particular Scripture doctrine which it opposes. The evidences of the divine authenticity of the Scriptures, especially to the Christian, who, in addition to all the rest, may have the evidence of his own experience, may be considered absolutely conclusive. We may admit, then, and we believe, that no one truth can contradict another truth, and that

The revelation in God's works cannot contradict the revelation in his word :

But the particular dogma does contradict the revelation in his word :

Therefore the particular dogma is not the revelation of his works.

Again : God's word is truth : but

One truth cannot contradict another truth :

But the particular dogma does contradict God's word :

Therefore the particular dogma is not the truth.

Let us now apply these principles to the theory under consideration. Are our author's

26 THE BESURRECTION.

" rational deductions " supported by an amount of evidence superior to that which authenticates the Bible ? Is it more evident that the God of infinite power and wisdom cannot prevent the particles which compose one human body from ever becoming essential parts of another human body, than that his word is true ? Is it more evident that the God by whom the very hairs of our heads are all numbered, and without whose notice not one is permitted to fall to the ground, cannot collect together again the scattered fragments of the human frame, than that the Bible is a divinely inspired record ? Is it more evident that God has no use for our bodies in the future world, than that the Scriptures are authentic ? Even our author does not pretend this : for he acknowledges on p. 235 that his rational deductions may be false ; while he declares, in another place, that he will yield to no man living in his implicit confidence in the Scriptures. While commenting upon John v> 28, 29, he says: "This passage, as understood in its literal import, does certainly encounter the force of that cumulative mass of evidence, built upon rational and philosophical grounds, which we have arrayed against any statement of the doctrine which would imply the participation of the body in that rising again which

*

is predicated of the dead. We do not by any means affirm that the conclusions from that source to which we have come are sufficient of themselves to countervail the rebutting conclusions which may be formed from this text. All we would say is, that they have weight, and consequently we are not at liberty at once to dismiss them." P. 235.

Mark this concession. What then is the correct conclusion even from his own premises ? Why that his " rational and philosophical deductions," being opposed to the Scriptures, and being supported by evidence vastly less conclusive than that which authenticates the Scriptures, are themselves irrational, unphilosophical, and false. Thus in his haste to thrust at the sublime doctrine of the resurrection, he has seized the sword of truth by the blade, which, when drawn to give the blow, has pierced himself. What then can be the use of all this flourish and parade about "rational and philosophical deductions," as doing away the resurrection of the body, unless it be to entangle and bewilder the unwary, or to captivate those whose empty heads will echc the sound philosophy, because nothing but the sound is in their heads ?

Having wrested, as we claim, the weapon from our opponent, we propose now to use it for a moment ourselves. Setting out then with the proposition, that no one truth can contradict another truth, we say that it is obligatory on him who broaches a new theory whose principles conflict with established truths, to make his theory yield to those truths, and not the truths to his theory. Instead of making his new theory, as Professor B. has done, the " criterion " by which the meaning of the "established truths'* is to be known, he is to make the established truths the criterion by which the truthfulness of his new theory is to be tested, bearing in mind that the truths with which the new theory is to be compared must be embraced in the same general subject with the theory itself. For example: The truths of geometry, or electromagnetism, cannot either favor or oppose the new doctrine of the resurrection, but the truths of revelation, especially upon the subject of the resurrection, can. Tried by these principles, the new doctrine of the resurrection is annihilated at once.

From what has now been said, it is evident that a theory, claiming to be a science perfectly independent of all other sciences, stands or falls according to its own intrinsic merits, without any reference whatever to established truths on other subjects, inasmuch as it is not of a character to be tested by them. Such we claim to be the Scriptural theory of the resurrection of the human body. The Scripture doctrine on this subject is, that the resurrection is an effect produced by the immediate agency of God; that it is a miraculous interposition of divine power. Consequently we may admit that the ordinary laws of nature are not sufficient for the accomplishment of such a result, without in the least degree weakening the argument in its favor. The subject, therefore, of the resurrection belonging to the science of miracles, must be studied in the light of miracles, and in no other light. For the science of miracles is above all other sciences, and independent of them. But a miracle being the result of the immediate agency of divine power, above the laws of nature, nothing can prevent its accomplishment, if God intends to perform it, but what limits the divine power. But what can limit the divine power ? It can accomplish anything which is not in itself absurd, and this is no limitation. For example : to say that God cannot make a full grown man of thirty years of age in a moment, is no limitation of divine power, for the proposition is self-contradictory. But that God intends to "raise the dead/' in the common acceptation of the term resurrection.

and in the sense in which the apostles understood the term, even by the admission of our author, Professor Bush himself would be willing to admit but for his " rational deductions." But I trust it has been shown that these deductions are anything else than " rational." And to say that God ever intended to raise the dead in this sense, and yet that the thing itself is contradictory in the nature of the case, is to cast a reflection upon the divine wisdom. Did not God, when he intended it, perfectly understand all the possible contingencies of matter ?